What's the deal with the declaration, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship"

Great Debates
1

I hear this sometimes from (some) Christians.

At first glance, it sounds like they’re declaring that their religion is about their personal relationship with the Almighty, as opposed to some earthly authority (ala the Protestant Reformation).

But if that were so, I’d expect it would be heard in the context of such disputes - i.e., directed pretty much exclusively by Protestants to Catholics, Orthodox Christians and the like.

But that’s not how I usually hear it. Often, it’s addressed to non-believers like me, in response to referring to the respondent’s religion:

Me: “Your religion says (something) is wrong!”
Christian: “Ah, ah - correction! Christianity is *not *a religion - it’s a relationship!”

Also, why must it be one or the other? Why can’t Christianity (or any other religion) be both a religion and a relationship? †

Again, it’s hard for me to place myself in the position of a believer, but I would think that anybody who prays feels they have some kind of a relationship with the prayer’s intended recipient, whether they’re praying to Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or any other deity.

When the declaration is addressed to me, I sometimes respond that if it’s true, Christianity isn’t protected by the First Amendment. After all, the establishment clause doesn’t say a word about relationships. (If it did, the history of marriage equality would be a lot different!)

Is it an oblique attempt to discredit other religions by implying that their deities aren’t real?

A cheap debating tactic designed to distract from the argument at hand?

Or, what?

Mods, I was torn between putting this thread in GD and IMHO. feel free to move as you wish.

† May God strike dead anyone who responds to this passage by referring to the late Earl Warren.

2

Why can’t it be both, like… ::::d+r:::: Actually, I haven’t heard very many people use this line of thinking, perhaps once or twice ever. Have you asked them for examples of what they think is a religion, not a relationship? I’m sure, like you say, there are many religions where a relationship between the worshipper and the godhead is important (while there are probably also ones where it is not. ETA: for example, religions where the entities are taken as symbols or archetypes rather than beings.)

3

Yep. It’s a rhetorical talking point. There’s no substance to it except to bog the other party down in having to argue over the definition of religion.

The proper response is to roll your eyes and find someone who wants to discuss comparative religion in a good-faith manner. You’re not going to get anything useful out of this one.

4

This is probably the most true point. The first objective in a debate is to get the other guy talking.

It may also be an attempt by Christian proselytizers to make Christianity seem like something different than other religions.

It’s also a form of begging the question. By trying to turn the argument to the issue of what your relationship with God is, they’re getting you to accept the premise that God exists to have a relationship with.

5

I doubt that the statement is a deliberate tactic to win a “debate.”

More likely, such a statement is uttered by someone who regards mainstream Christianity as having gone astray and they believe that their version is remaining more “true” to the message of Jesus. I suspect that they are rather suspicious of other Christian denominations and are generally not members of any high church organizations. (Or, if they are members of a mainstream group, they are specifically members of a subset that hlds itself separate from the larger body. E.g., belonging to a Charismatic group within the Episcopal church.)

Such folks are rather rare in any event.

6

It is part of the concept of the family of God. In the case of Christianity Father and Son are the usually 2 parts of God that is expressed in such terms. Through Christ we are ‘adopted’ as God’s Children with the same relationship with the Father as Jesus. This is where the relationship comes from.

In practice the religion, I have found much of this is, well not lip service or empty talk, but more like being told they are but not letting them be that, unless you meet the churches standard and do what they want and to meet their approval. Quite the opposite of Christ’s teaching IMHO.

7

Q. E. D.

:slight_smile:

8

It’s probably inspired by the old “Buddhism isn’t a religion, it’s a philosophy” thing.

Which, by the way, is equally disingenuous. Buddhism is definitely a religion. It has gods and demons, heavens and hells, afterlives, sin and penance, you name it. Living in a place with a large Asian community, you see this. Just because it’s not Western doesn’t mean it gets a free pass.

9

I have occasionally heard/read such claims, but I don’t remember the context.

It may have been in the context of claiming (as Evangelicals sometimes do) that being a Christian essentially consists of having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

It may have been someonne trying to explain what Christianity is by contrasting it with a (possibly strawmanish) definition of religion as what it is not (e.g. religion = a system of rules and regulations; a human institution; an attempt by human beings to manipulate God/the gods by their behavior, rituals, etc.).

It may have been in the context of saying something like “Jesus didn’t come to found a new religion but to establish a relationship with us.”

Or, in response to something like this:

I, at least, would be tempted to respond, “I’m not guided by something [i.e. “your religion”] but by Someone.” Which ultimately is true, but I would be wary of saying it in a way that implies I think I have a direct exclusive line to God and don’t need to consider or follow the teachings of my religious tradition.

10

NOW who’s being naive? :dubious:

Riddle me this: When Charismatic Episcopalians speak in tongues, is it Standard English with Received Pronunciation? When they handle snakes, is it only in the form of a Gucci snakeskin handbag? :dubious:

11

This is one of the more bizarre manifestation of the “We’re special!” belief by adherents of a religion.

Definitely not worth wasting your breath to refute.

12

I am a Christian who is utterly baffled and profoundly embarrassed by this phenomenon, on three levels.

First of all, their mantra suggests a concerning lack of fluency in the English language. The dictionary clearly states that “the belief in a god or in a group of gods” constitutes religion.

Secondly, if we took them at their word, we would have to say stuff like this: “20% of the population of the U.S. is religious; the remaining 80% consists of atheists, agnostics, Christians, and other non-religious people”. I’m not sure what the sociologist is supposed to do with this data… It’s an incredibly unhelpful definition.

But most importantly, they go against the very Book they profess to be sacred.

If you want to insult what God thinks is pure and undefiled, go right ahead. But I don’t want to be sitting in your shoes on Judgement Day.

13

Jack Chick is always having his characters say, “Jesus hates religion!” He’s simply using a narrower definition than usual of “religion” – he uses the word to mean rituals and ceremonies and things. The RCC, which he considers Antichrist, is all about “religion” in that sense, so he seems to be distinguishing true Christianity (i.e., Independent Baptist Christianity) from that.

I also recall a line from some evangelist back in the '70s: "Christianity is not a religion! It’s the truth!" [congregation applauds]

14

There are a few subsets of Buddhism that are so austere that they seem more like “philosophy” than “religion.” These are the kinds that don’t have gods, demons, or even spirits, just the vast impersonal “wheel” of all activity.

FWIW, I would have interpreted the slogan in the OP as implying the speaker has a personal relationship with God. I have several friends who are of this type: they talk to God, and God chats right back. I’ve asked if this isn’t putting them in danger of the Montanist* heresy. What if God tells them something that contradicts conventional dogma? And yet, if God doesn’t tell them anything they don’t already know, what good is it to have him talk to them?

(*I think it’s the Montanist heresy: the idea that just about anyone can utter prophecy, without it having to be subject to correction by church fathers. This, of course, breaks down instantly, the moment one parishioner prophecies, “God is not three, but only one.”)

(Personal revelation could also be seen as contradicting Rev. 22:18, by “adding to the prophecies in this book.”)

15

There are two common mistaken beliefs: (1) That all religions are the same, and (2) that all religions are different.

The belief that my beliefs are not captured by the caricature that you believe is both normal and true: humans think in stereotypes, and stereotypes misrepresent reality.

And of course, the reason stereotypes are dangerous is because they are true: I suggest one sterotype you could usefully adopt is to assume that when people are talking to you, they are talking about themselves, not about other religions, or even about the argument at hand.

16

Not according to this dictionary , I suggest check your dictionary again, I got:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

And this is quite different then a relationship which is what the OP means. One can know God and interact with God. It is not a belief, just as your relationship with your parents or guardians is not a belief. You may misinterpret what they say or what they want you to do, but then they will correct you.

And this is the fundamentals of that saying. As I stated above in practice it doesn’t work that way because they are in a religious structure. However it is helpful to the child o God to hear this message, and eventually question it, and seek why they say that but don’t do that, and seek further on their own and find God on their own, which IMHO is the relationship, which has no religion.

Or as God once told me (His exact words not mine) “Christianity has always been a underground movement”, My take on it is God works through the churches, but not in obvious ways. There are His angels to guide His children, these people are usually not the priest and church staff. In general they are in the pews and the ones you may chat with for a brief spell after service, and usually not about the sermon.

From the definition above, many Atheist are religious, which I do find the case. The religion for the most part is that of man’s science.

Again, and this is what I saw there, they contradicted scripture, usually to condemn (which this is not a spirit of God), such as if you don’t tithe you are robbing God, they neglect to mention that the sons are exempt from the temple tax, and there is no penalty for not tithing that Jesus has not already paid in full.

there is no penalty that Jesus has not already paid in full.

17

The bolded part seems to be an example of what I suggested in the OP:

Could a Muslim, a Jew, or a follower of any other religion who sees it as The Truth claim the same thing?

If your answer is, “no, because those religions aren’t The Truth”, I think you’ve answered the OP.

And I’ve wasted a lot of time over the years trying to understand this.

18

Jesus be like, “We didn’t land on Mount Ararat! Mount Ararat landed on us!”

19

As a Christian, what Christians mean by this “it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” is, “It’s not about legalism.”
However, technically speaking, Christianity *is *a religion.

20

Technically speaking, and broadly speaking, and colloquially speaking, and academically speaking, and historically speaking, and politically speaking, and sociologically speaking …